Tag Archives: drones

Our Middle East policy is chaotic to the point of incoherence. This isn’t the fault of any single party or administration. It’s really a bi-partisan tradition carried out over generations. If you look for consistency or a guiding principle, you won’t find one. We’re always living in dynamic tension between our philosophical values, e.g. freedom, democracy and tolerance, and our political and economic interests.

The world is very complicated, the Middle East in particular, and when we look at all the moving parts that are spinning, careening and bumping into each other, we don’t immediately intuit a unified field theory for the region. As the Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicist Werner Heisenberg observed (or did he?), We can know where we are or we can know where we’re headed, but we can’t know both at the same time.

People reasonably ask why we intervened in Libya but not Syria? They want to know why we were ready to bomb Syria who hadn’t attacked us, while trying to remain good friends with the Saudis who supplied 15 of the 19 terrorists of 9-11 and funds radical Wahabbi Mosques and Madrassas around the world? Folks are curious why, after arming the rebel “freedom fighters” in Benghazi who turned on us and killed our Ambassador, we still want to arm the rebel insurgents in Syria, most of whom are supported by Saudi money and many of whom come from Benghazi–the single largest source of Jihadis in Syria. These Al Qaeda backed groups for whom we seem to have enough sympathy to arm, are exactly the same folks who President Maliki of Iraq has asked us to help him fight. And we may say Yes! That Maliki is an agent of Iran does add a certain piquant irony to this mess.

Meanwhile our good “frenemies,” the Saudis, are waxing wroth that we’re not fighting Assad because he’s a friend of their primary enemy Iran. Israel and the Saudis agree that we should be firmer against Assad to send a message to Iran. A small and transient miracle of shared interests.

A little west of this hot mess is Egypt—once our best Arab friend. However, when Mubarak was overthrown and the result of their first democratic election was to put the Islamists in charge, we were not happy. Nor, as it turned out, were the Egyptian people who had led the way in overthrowing Mubarak. So, when they overthrew the elected president, Morsi, we weren’t clear if we should back Morsi because he was elected or distance ourselves because he was a bad choice. We equivocated and made enemies not only of all sides in Egypt but also amongst our allies in the region. They no longer trust our commitment to support the people we pledge to support. So once again we have brought the Saudis and Israelis into a transitory alliance of mistrust towards us.

In case all of this wasn’t crystal clear (and it shouldn’t be) let me summarize: We back elected governments, if the people choose wisely. We fight Al Qaeda, except when we support them. We are trying to isolate Iran, except when we arm and aid their allies.

Now add to this our drone controversy, and we see that we have a very firm and clear policy. We only kill with drones on the territories of our allies. Our enemies are safe. Thus we kill Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters in Yemen, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

Dismayed yes, surprised no, that Los Angeles could at some point in the not too distant future see drone use and indeed even drone strikes in and around the city. That possibility became more than just a worst case, futuristic horror when a batch of Southland firms eagerly snatched at the possibility of bidding on getting contracts to test drones over Los Angeles skies. The Southland was one of six proposed testing sites that the Pentagon wants to use to test drones.

The secret, widespread, and unchecked use of drones to kill has been controversial, contentious, and increasingly condemned by human rights groups and both Democrats and Republicans in congress. The heat on the CIA’s right to use drones any and everywhere and against anyone and everyone it deems a terrorist without any White House or congressional or even military approval has caused some rough moments and some reconsideration by President Obama. In fact, the heat on him to rein in the use of drones got so intense that he announced that he would try to shift their use back to the military where at least there is some White House and congressional oversight and required disclosure.

But even that shift in who, where and how drones can be used is meaningless if L.A. becomes a proving ground for drones. In other words it’s only a short step from testing drones over our skies to their use over our skies against anyone who’s deemed a threat, any kind of threat. One mayoral candidate is already on record saying that he would consider the use of drones presumably in Los Angeles. There was much clamor for use of drones to seek out and take out rogue LAPD cop Christopher Dorner.

Testing drones, then, takes L.A. down a slippery and dangerous and probably unconstitutional step toward unchecked power and abuse. The only difference is that it wouldn’t be the finger of a CIA or military operative on the drone button but that of a local official.